"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two is four.
If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell
"In the end the party would announce that two plus two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was
inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or
later; the logic of their position demanded it. Not
merely the validity of experience, but the very existence
of external reality was tacitly denied by their
philosophy." -- George Orwell, 1984

Epistemology is the study of the nature, source, and criteria
of knowledge. As a "geometrical synthesis of the whole occult
doctrine," the Seal of Solomon
suggests a great deal about occult epistemology.
To recapitulate the basic ideas attributed to the hexagram
in Judeo-Freemasonry, we quote
the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry:
"The interlacing triangles or deltas symbolize the union of the
two principles or forces, the active and passive, male and
female, pervading the universe.... The Two triangles, one white
and the other black, interlacing, typify the mingling of the two
apparent powers in nature, darkness and light, error and truth,
ignorance and wisdom, evil and good, throughout human life."
(Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Albert G. Mackey, 33rd Degree
Freemason, and Charles T. McClenachan, 33rd Degree Freemason, p.
801.) In the Jewish Kabbalah, the same meaning is
attributed to the "Star of David",
which is what we
might expect, since Freemasonry is
based on the Jewish Kabbalah.
(An argument could be made that Freemasonry is Judaism for gentiles.
Pope Leo XIII urged the faithful to
"tear away the mask from Freemasonry", and if that is
done, what lies beneath is the age old enemy of the Catholic
faith; namely, Talmudic-Kabbalistic Judaism.
To understand this,
one need only understand the meaning of Solomon's
Seal. Here we focus on one aspect of that multifaceted meaning.)

As an ideograph, the Seal of Solomon emblematically
equalizes, and therefore relativizes, truth and error, suggesting
that truth and falsehood are equally significant, equally powerful,
equally necessary, and mutually interdependent, i.e., interlocked,
symbolically speaking. In "the mysticism of identity", as
Ratzinger calls it, "there is in the end no distinction between
good and evil", from which it follows that there is no value
distinction between the good of the mind (truth) and the evil of
the mind (falsehood), either. (Joseph Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance)
For from the occult perspective, or what has
been called "the vital lie tradition", falsehood,
lie, and illusion are seen as every bit as vital and valuable as
truth, and therefore, every bit as good. Among others, Friedrick Nietzsche,
a Freemason, questioned
the idea that truth is more valuable than lie:
"Is wanting not to allow oneself to be decieved really less
harmful, less dangerous, less calamitous?"
What do you know
in advance of the character of existence to be able to decide
whether the greater advantage is on the side of the unconditionally
mistrustful or or the unconditionally trusting?"
After all, are there not many useful, beautiful, inspirational,
comforting lies? Are there not many fearful, ugly, disheartening
truths? (Gay Scienza, page 281) What Nietzsche, who was a Freemason,
according to Lady Queensborough's Occult Theocracy, was
apparently getting at is the idea that truth is unobtainable,
that errors are needful
in life, and that the conviction that man can discover objective
truth is itself an illusion, in which case the moral distinction
between truth and lie becomes nebulous.

George Orwell, allegedly
a member of a Kabbalist magical fraternity (the Golden Dawn),
evidently knew
well that the epistemological basis of the Big Brotherhood behind
Big-Brotherism is conceptual relativism. Speaking for
the inner Party, the antagonist, O'Brien, tells Winston Smith,
the protagonist:
"You believe that reality is something objective, external,
existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature
of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into
thinking that you see something, you assume everybody else
sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that
reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind,
and nowhere else." (Orwell, 1984, pg. 249)
Recently, the popular techno-hip movie The Matrix
advanced this epistemological relativism, which holds that
there's no reality outside of our own mind. By means of this
incredibly slick subterfuge in the form of a film, young people
are slyly seduced into accepting the very epistemological viewpoint
that will assure
their assimilation into the Masonic media-matrix, or what
Michael A. Hoffman II, calls "the Videodrome".
Hoffman calls the movie "a virus", and indeed, that is an apt
description, since conceptual relativism is the contagion of our
time. Here we will examine this relativism in light of George Orwell's
famous work of fiction, 1984.

According to Eric Fromm in the introduction to my version of
1984,
Orwell shows the great illusion of the assumption that
epistemolgical relativism and freedom can continue to
co-exist. Since this view runs so contrary to what we are
led to think today, it's one worth questioning at length.
The danger that nucleor weapons pose to an open democracy is
obvious. We have no difficulty understanding how the threat
of nucleor terrorism or war can be used as the justificaiton
or pretext to implement a seamless and all-encompassing
surveillance system. But what connection there is, if any,
between relativism and Big-Brotherism is not so obvious, and
it certainly seems a subject less commented upon. Since, in
my view, relativism was soundly refuted by Socrates over two
thousand years ago, it won't be our task here to address the
epistemoloigcal soundness of that theory. The theory owes
its success not to any epistemological soundess, but rather
to it's almost irresistable sex appeal. After all, if there
is no objective truth, all things are permitted and the only
rule is the rule of the jungle, or social Darwinism.
The sex appeal of Darwinism is obvious; what better excuse
to behave like an animal than the theory that that's all we
are?

In "Truth and Tolerance", Joseph Ratzinger points out that
"relativism has become the central problem of faith of our
time. It by no means appears simply as resignation in the
face of the unfathomable nature of truth"; rather, he
observes, relativism today defines itself as something
positive, as the definitive idea of our age, one that
promotes tolerance, dialectic discourse, and intellectual
freedom. (Truth and Tolerance, page 117; quotes by Ratzinger
should not be taken to mean that the author of this article
supports Vatican II.) "In current thinking", says Ratzinger,
"the conscience appears as an expression of the absolute
value of the subjective self, above and beyond which there
can be no further judgement in the moral realm. What is good
as such cannot be known. The one God cannot be known. As
far as morality and religion are concerned, the self is the
final arbiter. That is logical, if we have no access to
truth as such." In other words, epistemological relativism
leads logically to ethical relativism, which makes the self
or one's will the absolute: "Do As Thou Will Shall Be The
Whole of the Law." As we will see, however, that this
"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY", to use the slogan of the inner party
in Orwell's novel.

Ratzinger notes, also, how we've been led to think that
relativism is the philosophical basis of democracy, which is
constantly threatened by those who claim to know "the
truth", the only right way to go forward, a presumption
which is used to force one view of the truth down the the
collective throat of society and the world. "A free society
is said to be a relativistic society; only on this condition
can it remain open and free", writes Ratzinger. Not that
Razinger embraces this fallacy, but he does present the
opposing view fairly and thus frames the problem well.

Interestingly, however, Orwell's book advances a theory
altogether at odds with the cultural relativism that's being
touted as our only salvation from intellectual imperialism
and tyranny. Unbeknowst to most, this relativism forms the
basis of Solomonic magic and modern satansim as expounded by
Aleister Crowley: "In order to do that (to become free) we
must become a new kind of person, and we have to start that
process the same way the legendary
Knights Templar did -- by
first liberating ourselves from the great delusion that
keeps most of us in a state of spiritual bondage -- the
delusion that we do not create our own reality..." Lon Milo
Duquette, "The Key to Solomon's Key", page 102. The idea
that we each create our own reality is of course a form of
relativism, and it sounds exciting and exhilerating to think
we have this magical freedom to mould our reality. That's
the sucker-bait anyway.

The epistemology of the inner Party in Orwell's novel is
based upon Solomonic magic, and more precisely, that branch
of Kabbalist magia which is called black magic, as opposed
to the white magic that's common in the outer Party. The
relevant distinction between white and black magic is this:
in white magic, evil is done so that good may come of it,
but in black magic, good is done so that evil may come of
it. In other words, the white magician invokes evil spirits
(demons) because the end justifies the means; that is, as
set forth in "Between Good and Evil" by Golden Dawn magician
William Grey, the good magician utilizies those dark forces
of his nature, the so called demonic aspects of the psyche,
but uses them for good, allegedly, and in any case, rather
than trying to suppress or deny or revile those forces, the
"good" magician calls forth the demonic powers, commanding
and cajoling them, via magical talismans and incantations,
to do what the magician percieves as good rather than evil.
In psychoanalytic circles I suppose this might be likened to
sublimation, but it's quite different because the white
magician is actually trying to consciously evoke and exhibit
the dark fores, to summon them from the deep subconscious so
that they can be dealt with and used, supposedly, to do
good, despite the obvious reluctance that evil spirits would
presumably have to good.

So viewed, these "evil" entities, which in the Catholic
world are considered evil spirits and cardinal sins, such as
envy, pride, lust, etc., can no longer be seen as evil by
the magician insofar as they are percieved as necessary,
inevitable, and if properly utilized, "good" forces in the
sense that their power is directed by a supposedly good
magician to achieve supposedly good ends.

In Grey's words: "If the real Satan is the sum total of
human Evil, it is bound to ultimately destroy us unless we
can bring it under our control and utilize its energy
beneficially. There is an almost exact parallel between evil
and nuclear energy..." Evil, he adds, like nuclear energy,
is an extremely powerful force, yet it has side effects such
that, even when harnessed to do good, e.g., to provide
electrical energy for our cities, it entails negative and
seemingly unavoidable side effects., such that, even knowing
its power, we are rightly reluctant to rely upon it. Like
evil, nuclear energy has long-term effects on human
genetics, which we call mutation. The physical deformity
caused by exposure to radient energy is more obvious perhaps
but no less devastating than the moral effect of what might
be called "bad seed", i.e., people who have no concern for
others and precious little even for themselves. Evil thus
seems to become part and parcel of our collective DNA, or a
sort of hereditary original sin if you will.

Yet later, after saying as much, Gray postulates the theory
that all energy is energy pure and simple, so there's no
fundamental difference, so to speak, between "good" and
"evil" energy; it all depends upon how it's used: "Since
theoretically energy is energy pure and simple, and only
intention motivates that energy for Good, Evil, or any
intermediate purpose; the same energy that empowers a brutal
murder might equally well be applied to saving a life or to
some corresponding benefit to one's fellow human." The
decisive factor is the motivation, Grey tells us. But how
does this fit in with his earlier contention that evil is to
magic what nulear energy is to applied physics; namely,
extremely powerful but not without negative, i.e., evil,
side effects, such that, despite its tremendous power, one
might well be reluctant to rely upon it? Also, what appears
to matter, as a practical matter, is not what good intents
we have but what the actual consequences will be if those
intents are acted upon. Thus the most important intent, one
which can be corrupted by relativism, is our intent to know
the truth of the matter, i.e., what will the consequences be
in fact.

Implicitly, the inherent evilness of evil is demonstrated
when the white witch draws down a circle as protection from
the spirits invoked. Presumably, such protection would not
be percieved as necessary if the forces were seen as benign,
but in fact it's known that these spirits are often not only
recalcitrant and reluctant to perform the will of the white
magician, but what's more, the witch is in constant danger
that the evil forces will use and abuse the witch to do evil
rather than be controlled by the white witch to do what is
percieved as good. Thus Grey's books contains the typical
warnings to magicians by magicians.

Without trying to refute this occult view of good and evil,
let it suffice to say how it differs from the Christian
view, where good and evil are considered two mutually
exclusive, incommensurable, irrecociliable, and
fundamentally antagonisic and seperate powers. The Bible
makes no distinction between white and black magic but
simply forbids magic altogether. This is because, in the
Christian veiw, evil is completely lacking in any moral
justification. Evil is simply evil. Period. And good is
good. End of story. In other words, from the Christian
viewpoint, the end can never justify any evil means.
Perhaps the worst consequence of magic
is that it confuses and confounds the mind concerning good
and evil, making evil seem good, good seem evil. There is no
better symbolic icon to represent this conflation of good
with evil, light with dark, than Solomon's Seal, where the
two triangles, representing goond and evil, are interlocked,
forming one symbol--suggestive, then, that the two are one,
that the two so conjoined and equalized are more stable and
solid than either seperated. In the occult paradigm, this
represents the effective use of polarities, the equilibrium
of opposites, the balance of good and evil.

We have stated, then, the difference that exists between
black and white magic, but it remains to show how Orwell's
novel depicts a dystopian world that's given itself over to
magic completely. Malcolm Pittock, in his essay "The Hell
of Nineteen Eight-Four", points out that the regime depicted
1984 has been widely percieved as in some sense Satanic. It's
a "hell without a counterveiling heaven", the reign of anti-Christ
without Divine deliverance or a New Jerusalem,
where the rulers have "the kind of powers traditionally attributed
to demons", e.g., telepathic suggestion, etc., and where some of
the characters, e.g., Charrington, almost take on the appearance
themselves of being shape shifting demons. Yet the numinous
nature and diabolic darkness of Orwell's dystopia is no allegory
of hell, no Inferno of Dante brought to earth, and it stems not
from any supernatural powers possesed by the elite but rather
from the possession of the elite by supernatural demonic powers
as a consequence of the pervasive practice of magic. This is
never stated explicitly, but it's the only hypothesis that can
explain the keen observations made by Pittock and other
commentators.

The Inner Party members are practitiners of black magic, and
Orwell's novel is not only a warning about totalitarianism
but a subtle warning to the world about giving itself over
to the practice of magic, whether black or white.
In Orwell's novel the distinction is clearly made, when
Winston Smith, a member of the outer Party, erroneously
assumes that the Inner Party, the Big
Brothehoood behind Big Brother, justifies its
machinations as a means to the common good: "He (Winston)
knew in advance what O'Brien would say: that the Party
didn't seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of
the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass
were frail, cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty
or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically
decieved by others who were stronger than
themselves.....That the Party was the eternal guardian of
the weak, doing evil that good might come,
sacrificing its own happiness to that of others."

But O'Brien divests Winston of this illusion: "The Party
seeks power
entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good
of others; we are interested soley in power. Not wealth or
luxery or long life or happiness; only power, pure
power...The object of persecution is persecution. the object
of torture is torture. the object of power is power. Now do
you begin to understand me?" Power, O'Brien tells Winston,
is power over other people, and there's no better way to
demonstrate that power than through the infliction of pain.
Thus, the dogma of the inner Party, as put forth by O'Brien,
is simply Crowleyanity, the unmystified mystagoguey that is
evil with eyes wide open, though never openly evil to the
outer party or the proles, whom they must and do decieve. It
is, no less, the power worship depicted in J.R.R.
Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings"; namely, the black magic of the
Dark Lord Sauron, and thus the end result is the
same all-seeing Eye of Evil. The all-seeing eye is just as
much the inveitable product of the process of Solomonic
sorcery as Solomonic sorcery is the inevitable process of
the occult paradigm. Thus the all-seeing eye surfaces in both
works of fiction because both works are fundamentally
historical, not in the sense that they are allegories of the
actual historical events of any particular time, but in the
grand sense, or the deeper and more illustrative sense,
in that they are based upon a careful study of history
and reveal the lessons or meanings of history.

O'Brien goes on to boast: "We are the priests of power. God
is power." There it is; the dogma of Kabbalist dualism
plainly stated; God is a force, which force is power, a
power that can be utilized by the magician to good or evil
end, but the Dark Side of the Force is where the greatest
power is, so the inner party is given over to black magic.
because they're Priests of Power, who worship
power as Ministers of Pain and Death. This is kabbalistic
satanism, or Crowleyism, plain and simple, and anybody who
doubts the reality or danger of the Crowleyite Qabalist
conspiracy does so at their peril and the peril of posterity
and the people they love. In short, Orwell's dystopia is
Satanic because its rulers are in fact Satanists.

The insanity of this paradigm is based on the erroneous
epistemology of relativism. Reality, according to the Inner
Party, doesn't exist outside of oursevles, but as Freemason
Duquette says, "we make our own reality" because reality
exists in the human mind and nowhere else. Whatever the
Inner Party holds to be truth is truth because the party,
unlike individual minds that must soon die, exists both in
the present and future as a perpetual collective
consciousness established and sustained by what is
essentially black magic. Even the past doesn't exist, except
in the Party mind, because whoever controls the present
controls the past. This is arguably the future as planed by
the innermost sects of Kabbalistic Freemasonry, and George
Orwell knew it because he was himself a member of the Golden
Dawn, a magical fraternity composed of high-level Freemasons
and Qabalists. As Aleister Crowley, himself a
member of the Golden Dawn, who initiated Orwell, said: "...the
whole basis of our theory is Qabalah." The Invisible Empire
of Freemasonry, which is a secret soceity within a secret
society, a religion within a religin, and a state within the
state, comprises, at its higher levels, the Big Brotherhood
behind Big Brother, and it's no coincidence, then, that the
"All Seeing Eye" remains one of their central icons. They
know full well, at least at the top. that it represents, to
use an analogy, the eye of the dark lord Sauron, as depicted
in JRR Tolkien's trillogy.

If you what to know what the New World Order that they plan
will really be like, read George Orwell's famous novel.
Freedom is indeed what they plan, but lest you be decieved
by their propaganda, recall that, in Orwell's novel, one of
the Inner Party's slogans is FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. After all,
our slavery is their freedom to do whatever they will with
us, whether it be robery, rape, or torture--you name it.
Therein lies the crux of the matter. There, plainly stated,
is the reason you should resist the New World Order lest
you commit high treason to our Constitutional Republic, and
what's worse, much worse, high treason to the King of Heaven,
the one true God of love and truth, Jesus Christ, who is the
only Way away from evil. When O'Brien says to Winston,
in Winston's dream, "until a time when ther is no darkness",
this is characteristic Kabbalistic crypto-mockery on
O'Brien's part; what he really means is; until the time
when we have you incarcerated in the Ministry of Love,
where the lights are always glaring. The whole socieity is
based on this kind of crypto-mockery.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot
stamping on a human face--forever." (George Orwell, 1984)
If you want a picture of an incontrovertible refutation of
relativism, ask yourself this question: Is the excruciating
pain of Hell relatively painful, or is it absolutely so?
How proud, how tough, how smart, or how clever do you think
you would really feel after two minutes in Hell?
Even a satanic Qabalist Crowleyite should be able to
fathom the obvious answers to these questions after but a few
minutes in the tortures that they would gladly inflict upon
us. This is the irony at the end of Orwell's book, that the
inner party, the Priest of Pain, the Ministery of Misery,
inflict torture which is both the bulwark thier contrived
consensus (i.e., reality) but ultimately the utter
refutation of relativism.

Joseph Runzo
defines this relativism as follows:
"In general, conceptual relativism is the view that what
is true depends on a society's conceptual schema(s) - that
is, depends on those cognitive resources, principally concepts, beliefs, and their
interrelationships, which the members of any
given society bring to experience, thereby
ordering their 'world'. Rephrased then, conceptual relativism
is the epistemological position that the truth of
statements (3) is relative to the conceptual schema(s)
from wihch they are formulated and /or assessed.
Expressed in theology as theological relativism, this is the view that what is
religious truth within one perioud of church history, or
within one period of church history, or within one
religous society, is false or merely mythological
within another society, and vice versa." (Runzo, pg 117)

The logical implications of epistemological relativism, if it's
accepted:
(1) Moral or ethical relativism: "Do As Thou Will..."
(2) Might is right, i.e., "POWER IS GOD"
(3) Reality is what the greatest power says it is.
(4) There is no higher moral authority than the State,
the greatest power; whereas objectivists appeal to
truth as the only legitimate basis of power, relativists
can only appeal to the dictum that "might makes right",
(5) Dissenters from the conceptual schema of society are
ipso facto insane
(6) Isolation, alienation, desolation, lack of trust; the
all seeing eye as the abomination of desolation.

END NOTES AND QOUTES
Winston's faith, unbeknownst perhaps to Winston, remains the
faith of Christianity, which was also the faith of Plato, that
God is truth, that truth is divine, and that truth is not only
worth seeking and keeping, but it's the only legitimate basis
of power or authentic criterion of sanity. It is this faith
in objective truth,
of course, which the Qabalistic anti-Christian Crowleyites are
determined to destroy, and thus they seek out heretics, whose
resistence to the relativism of the party is seen, rightly, as
heresy against the anti-Christ, or Satan, the Father of Lies,
who is the hidden power behind Big Brother's mysterious smile.
We might well wonder, then, if George Orwell, in the throes of
a desperate struggle with his deathly disease, Tuberculosis,
and not willing to die until he completed his book, 1984,
shared Winston's faith, not
knowing, perhaps, how Christian, how non-humanistic, how alien
his faith was to the Corpus Anti-Christi from which he had
presumably been estranged.

The motto "Do As Thou Will Shall Be The Whole of the Law",
which is the logical implication of epistomelogical
relativism, by no means owes its origin to cretin Crowley;
Sir Francis
Dashwood, the founder
of the infamous Hellfire's Club, used it, according to Secret Soceities
of America's Elite by Steven Sora. Also, in another book
we read:
"In his rule at the abbey of Theleme, Rabelais (1494-1553),
who was certainly an accepted mason, has left us with the
constitution of a society of free men. The sole rule of
the Thelemites was this: Do What You Will..." (Paul Naudon,
pg. 39-40, The Secret History of the Freemasons)
Thus, although Crowley supposedly recieved this revelatory
maxim from a spirit guide, this may be but another among the
multifarious frauds perpetrated by Crowley and clan.

"The first impossibility required of the adept is Black Magic
is therefore that he should love God before he bewitches his
neighbor; that he should put all his hopes in God before he
makes a pact with Satan; that, in a word, he should be good
in order to do evil." (Freemason and black witch A.E. Waite,
"The Book of Black Magic", as quoted from page 136)

"Magical Theory accepts the absolute reality of all things
in the most objective and absolute sense. But all perceptions
are neither the observer nor the observed; they are
representations of the raltion between them. We cannot affirm
any quality in an object as being independent of our sensorium,
or as being in intself that which it seems to us. Nor an we
assume that what we cognize is more than ap artial phantom of
tis cause." (Magick in Theory and Practice", page 110)

"Magick recognizes frankly (1) that truth is relative, subjective,
and apparent; (2) that Truth implies Omniscience,
which is unattainable by mind, being transfinite; just as if one
tried to make an exact map of England in England, that map must
contain a map of the map, and son on, ad infinitum; (3)
that liogical contradiction is inherent in reason,
(Russell, 'Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy', p. 136;
Crowley, 'Eleusis', and elsewhere); (4) that a Continuum requires
a Continueem to be conmmensurable with it: (5) that Empiricism
is ineluctable , and therefore that adjustment is the only possible
method of action; and (6) that error may be avoided by opposing
no resistance to change, and registering observed phenomena in their
own language." (Crowley, "Magick In Theory and Practice",
page 78)

Malcolm Pittock observes that the regime depicted 1984 has been
widely percieved as in some sense Satanic; it's
a hell without a cooresponding heaven, the reign of anti-Christ
without Divine deliverance, a dystopia with no dearth of demons,
yet devoid of angels, where the rulers have "the kind of
powers traditionally attributed to demons", e.g., telepathic
suggestion, etc., and where some of the characters, e.g.,
Charrington, almost take on the appearance themselves of being
shape shifting demons. However, although the regime in in
command of supernatural powers, they are neither ominpotent
nor omniscient.

In other words, the Brotherhood is a phantom opposition, completely
fabricated and fictional, else controlled opposition, completely
compromised and complicit in the conspiracy.